The Personal

TL;DR version: I'm newly invigorated about D&D Next knowing that an apparently strong advocate for grognard gameplay is no longer advocating for that gameplay to be codified in the rules. But I'm sad that the way that advocacy had to go away was by a friend no longer having a contract.

TL version:

I'm sad that a friend is without a contract any more. That's always bad and I'm always sad whenever that happens to any of my friends.

But, on the other hand...here's the thing...

All of my objections over D&D Next, that have thus far been suggested/presented/&c. on the D&D website, have been things that have been pro-grognard.

It seemed most of the pro-grognard ideas came from Monte's posts—before he stopped posting altogether. (And who could forget that "smart play" comment?)

Further, most of the objections that I've seen on the internets about D&D Next have been over pro-grognard concepts. Perhaps this mismatch was too tangible. Maybe the things Monte was advocating were too antagonizing to extant gamist (read: opposite of grognard) player. I honestly don't know.

If there's any positive to come from this, I hesitantly wonder if it's D&D Next.